Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

Actually, in terms of making an opinion (your opinion) accepted, I would say that even more important than having "facts" is being respected by other people, i.e. being able to make other people want to listen to your opinion. Cold hard facts might reflect reality, but it can't actually be said that it is human nature to desire reality above everything else. The most important thing is whether people actually want to hear what you're saying, and in that respect your message can be helped tremendously by proper etiquette or tone. After all, no one will want to respect you, if you clearly first do not respect them.

That is the nature of discussion/communication, i.e. what goes on in this forum, which must be clearly distinguished from logical argument/debate. Argument/debate might sometimes be necessary to hash out/settle irreconcilable differences, but the primary purpose of discussion is simply to communicate with other people.

Which gets to the heart of what this thread topic is talking about. A whole lot of (argumentative) people, on this forum and others, act like "truth" is their only concern. To ask them to try to show some respect for other people isn't a criticism, it's a genuinely well-intended suggestion to help them communicate more effectively. I'll refrain from generalizing it completely as a symptom of age, but basically it is ridiculously naive to think that you can get through all of life relying solely on "truth" or "objectivity". The sooner that people realize that you really do have to make room to account for human weakness (both in yourself, and in others) and empathy, the better.

it is ridiculously naive to think that you can get through all of life relying solely on "truth" or "objectivity". The sooner that people realize that you really do have to make room to account for human weakness (both in yourself, and in others) and empathy, the better.

For me, the main difference between real life and here, is that we are in the internet here. This might not be the case for all, but for me internet community-based sites were always places where you could disregard the annoyances that real life interaction presents (such as restraint when expressing your opinion directly because you might offend someone). The most heated discussions tend to happen over text, especially on internet forums like this, and this doesn't just pertain to anime.

Now we have Facebook, Twitter and all that jazz and it seems like the web is just an extension to real life, so the difference is more blurry, but still I never expect to be taken too seriously when I post, and I don't take many posts seriously either.

And for your other point, anyone with half a neuron should realize that there is no real "truth" for anything (much less for entertainment), and so I don't really look at how someone words their posts at the time of replying. Whether they said "X is shit because of Y", or "I didn't really like X, due to Y", makes no difference the same for argumentative purposes.

This might not be the case for all, but for me internet community-based sites were always places where you could disregard the annoyances that real life interaction presents (such as restraint when expressing your opinion directly because you might offend someone).

I have to admit that you're sort of hurting my faith in humanity a little bit here. I mean, of course, there are times when you have to mince your words and be diplomatic in order to preserve the peace. But if you actually were reading my "stream of consciousness", I don't think it'd typically be all that different from what I usually write, except if I'm particularly angry or otherwise in a bad mood. But, what you're sort of proposing is that being sort of angry, selfish, and spiteful (among other things) is a sort of "default state" and you go through real life constantly forcing yourself to "tone down". In that sort of scenario, the Internet is like the only place where you can be your "true self". And, in that scenario, I'd have to say: some people's "true selves" really aren't very nice.

I always assumed that it was more the other way around: that the anonymity of the Internet gave people an opportunity to exaggerate and grandstand and basically do and say all the sorts of things that aren't necessarily their "true selves". Or rather, it's the negative parts of their selves cranked up to 11 because they can get away with it. I suppose it could be a sort of catharsis.

Believing the latter is, I suppose, a form of optimism, because it allows me to think "they don't really believe that deep down, they're just saying that to make their point or win an argument". But if it's the case that most people really do believe those things, and they just act reasonable when it's expeditious to them to do so... well, yeah. I suppose this is fundamentally why I appeal to "tone it down", because I'm assuming that people are "toning it up" because it's the Internet. But if not... well, I guess that'd certainly explain how one could get jaded really quickly.

The most heated discussions tend to happen over text, especially on internet forums like this, and this doesn't just pertain to anime.

It is certainly true that we are allowed to be more open and free on the internet, mainly because the possible repercussions for us are usually much less. When people don't have to worry about their opinions possible costing them friends or isolating them, we are generally as a whole more open to expressing them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warm Mist

Whether they said "X is shit because of Y", or "I didn't really like X, due to Y", makes no difference the same for argumentative purposes.

Hmmm, it depends what you are trying to argue but usually explaining your reasoning behind something is the best possible way to argue. Well it might not lead to agreement, stating your reasons for your opinion can help other people see where you are coming from and even if it doesn't, this opens up more areas of discussions on said topic/opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

Actually, in terms of making an opinion (your opinion) accepted, I would say that even more important than having "facts" is being respected by other people, i.e. being able to make other people want to listen to your opinion. Cold hard facts might reflect reality, but it can't actually be said that it is human nature to desire reality above everything else. The most important thing is whether people actually want to hear what you're saying, and in that respect your message can be helped tremendously by proper etiquette or tone. After all, no one will want to respect you, if you clearly first do not respect them.

Respect is certainly needed as well. The way that once presents facts to others is just as important as the facts themselves. But if what you are saying is either incoherent or full of bias/assumptions, then even if it is presented in a respectable away most people won't be willing to listen. Although you are somewhat right where just having the ability to communicate with etiquette and respect can truly move people even without cold hard facts (Hitler/Nazi Germany).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

Which gets to the heart of what this thread topic is talking about. A whole lot of (argumentative) people, on this forum and others, act like "truth" is their only concern. To ask them to try to show some respect for other people isn't a criticism, it's a genuinely well-intended suggestion to help them communicate more effectively. I'll refrain from generalizing it completely as a symptom of age, but basically it is ridiculously naive to think that you can get through all of life relying solely on "truth" or "objectivity". The sooner that people realize that you really do have to make room to account for human weakness (both in yourself, and in others) and empathy, the better.

You seem to be making the assumption, maybe unintentionally, that it is not possible to speak the truth and show respect which is completely false. Well the truth behind somethings maybe harsh and harder to bare, that doesn't mean it can't be presented in a respectable way. There seems to be another assumption that you can't seek the truth and account for human error at the same time, I feel like I maybe misunderstanding what you mean by "truth".

Now we have Facebook, Twitter and all that jazz and it seems like the web is just an extension to real life, so the difference is more blurry, but still I never expect to be taken too seriously when I post, and I don't take many posts seriously either.

The issue of taking discussions on internet forums seriously is a whole other question altogether. The one thing I have to say about not taking even your own posts seriously is that in that case, you can't expect anybody else to actually care about what you're saying, either. If that's not what you wanted in the first place, then perfect, but you should probably recognize that not everyone will want to take that position.

Quote:

And for your other point, anyone with half a neuron should realize that there is no real "truth" for anything (much less for entertainment), and so I don't really look at how someone words their posts at the time of replying. Whether they said "X is shit because of Y", or "I didn't really like X, due to Y", makes no difference the same for argumentative purposes.

This is a different fallacy, perhaps a philosophical one, claiming that there is no such thing as "truth" in the universe. My own take on such claims is that they are so impossibly general (paradoxical, even) that it is impossible for anyone to truly believe in them, so forgive me for not taking your claim seriously. There are such things as truth (i.e., things everybody will acknowledge) in the world; however, it is precisely because such things are so rare and difficult to find that people should choose their words more carefully.

added:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soverence

You seem to be making the assumption, maybe unintentionally, that it is not possible to speak the truth and show respect which is completely false. Well the truth behind somethings maybe harsh and harder to bare, that doesn't mean it can't be presented in a respectable way. There seems to be another assumption that you can't seek the truth and account for human error at the same time, I feel like I maybe misunderstanding what you mean by "truth".

Actually, I didn't mean to imply that it was impossible in either case; what I wanted to say was that people should try harder to do those things. Specifically, in terms of "accounting for human weaknesses", I meant recognizing that what you believe is true might not actually be true, and that even if you are right, people who don't want to hear what you're saying should still be afforded a level of respect as fellow humans.

being sort of angry, selfish, and spiteful (among other things) is a sort of "default state" and you go through real life constantly forcing yourself to "tone down".

This was mostly what I was referring to. For me, using strong wording or expressing things in an aggressive way is not related at all with being angry and selfish (maybe it is spiteful in itself, but I don't find it all that bad). Of course not everyone is the same when talking, and being overly hateful for the sake of it is just pointless. Do you see me insulting everything for no reason?
What I'm getting at is that many people can't deal with the cognitive dissonance of someone strongly disagreeing with their beliefs, when it happens face to face and there's the whole layer of physically being there present. It's more easy to overlook those sort of things when just reading text. That, anonymity and the fact that you won't risk getting beaten to a pulp contribute to internet being usually a much more offensive and aggressive place than the meatworld. But I don't see that as something so bad in an of itself, or at the very least it doesn't bother me to the extent it may bother you or someone else. It's just a natural consequence of this method of communication. My initial point is that I think it's more reasonable in this context for people to adapt to "objective", aggressive opinions (as long as they actually have some content that can be disputed or agreed with), than being constantly annoyed by them.

I don't think it actively annoys you beyond not getting why people do it, though. Most regular board users are probably already accustomed to it.

Being called out for any statement you make can also be related to the reasoning itself and not just how it's presented. Honeyed words and synchronized sentences don't make a good argument and inarticulate writing doesn't necessarily wrong what might be right.

After a certain point and when all arguments are exhausted, though, it becomes a matter of admittance. For example, I like Show X for reasons A, B, and C while someone dislikes Show X for reasons X, Y, and Z; both arguments could be "right" but neither side will usually admit it. Instead they'll try to, God forbid, refute the points they know they can't debunk and the cluster**** begins.

__________________

I want to know more, it's a wild night
let's delve into the dreams
I want to know more, it's a wild ride
so let's have a shocking party
dancing, dancing, don't stop my dancing
dancing, dancing, let me do

After a certain point and when all arguments are exhausted, though, it becomes a matter of admittance. For example, I like Show X for reasons A, B, and C while someone dislikes Show X for reasons X, Y, and Z; both arguments could be "right" but neither side will usually admit it. Instead they'll try to, God forbid, refute the points they know they can't debunk and the cluster**** begins.

And that's where I'd actually like to think the real *fun* begins... thanks to eristic debates.
After all, it's not like fallacious arguments cannot arrive at true conclusions, and viceversa.

I've long been a fan of using qualifiers such as "in my opinion" or "personally,..." while in an internet debate. I admit that I very rarely engage in debates over anime, but I've been in my fair share of other types of debates that interest me (religious, philosophical, etc). I find it to be fun and mentally stimulating to see what the other side has to say and if my point of view can continue to hold weight when I actively pit it against another way of looking at things. In order to continue to have an exchange of ideas and actually stick to the content of the discussion, I tend to think using phrases like "in my opinion" eases the tone of my post/comment/etc. I'm not trying to force them to think my way, I'm not proclaiming what I say to be fact, and I'm accepting of the reality that this is simply 'my viewpoint.'

Sure, the other party should be expected to understand that I am arguing from my own viewpoint, especially on a matter with no definitive answer. The problem is, we don't always understand the other party's objectives so clearly and this problem is compounded by the fact that we're on an internet forum with no body language, tone of voice, etc to help elaborate on the mindset of the debater. So perhaps, to them, if I come out and begin harshly disagreeing without ever qualifying that it is my opinion, they can interpret me as being proselytizing, or, at least, dismissive of their viewpoint. Maybe I'm not really, but who cares? It's just easier to avoid such misunderstandings and soften the tone a bit by reminding everyone I'm aware it's just my opinion. Further, I think when you maintain awareness of this fact, people are more inclined to share their ideas and why they see differently than you, rather than get caught up in the tone of your post.

In my experience, if I don't qualify things as being my opinion - even if it's redundant, even if it's unnecessary... it can detract from the actual discussion I'm trying to have because people become distracted by their misunderstandings of perceived combativeness on my part. They may still defend their opinion and present interesting replies, but it's then become a conflict of sorts and people hunker down into their viewpoints in a more rigid fashion, not willing to be open to new ideas and perhaps not as truthful about the intricacies of their viewpoint.

I find it rather silly to be opposed to using qualifying phrases as a 'matter of principle...' I think they definitely have some distinct advantages in an online debate and can stop people from taking things personally (whether or not they're right to do so is irrelevant, in the end) and instead allow the discussion at hand to come to the fore.

In order to continue to have an exchange of ideas and actually stick to the content of the discussion, I tend to think using phrases like "in my opinion" eases the tone of my post/comment/etc. I'm not trying to force them to think my way, I'm not proclaiming what I say to be fact, and I'm accepting of the reality that this is simply 'my viewpoint.'

Yes, I would say that using "disarming words" typically helps to convey your intent.

I've said this before, but in real life, there are all sorts of cues that communicate our intent; things like our posture, the look on our faces, where we direct our eyes, the tone of voice, and so on. And these cues help determine the reaction we get. Online, we don't have any of those cues, so we have to convey it in words. And, if we want a constructive, productive conversation, usually we want to communicate things like: I'm open to learning, I'm not claiming I'm perfect, I'm not going to put you down for feeling differently, and so on. These help assure the other person that talking to us is worth their time, and that something good will result. If, on the other hand, someone is sending a message like "I'm here to tell you what I think" or "I think everyone is wrong except me"... well, they're going to send the message that talking to them isn't going to be productive. Then, the whole experience just becomes about defending one's self; "I don't agree with you, and I think I'm a reasonable person too".

But, as I said before, it only works if the person really is open to opinions and isn't just tacking on the words as a sort of "faux humility". If someone really does think they've got the exclusive scoop on The Correct Opinion about entertainment (and that everyone who thinks differently is Wrong), I personally doubt they have much of use to contribute to a forum experience, that is as much about receiving as giving.

I would have to say I'm not a fan of IMO at all, and only sometimes do it out of habit or super clarity.

I feel too often people think IMO.... I think.... is a magical shield that protects you from irresponsibly saying things that really shouldn't be.

I guess what I'm trying to say that no amount of perfume and sugar will make up for a lack of tact. I respect people's right to an opinion, but it is not an absolute right. One must take responsibility to secure said right.

__________________

The greatest lie is to convince people that the world is a dangerous place and a zero sum game where you are never safe. Distrust others and fight them for scraps, while the real enemy that spreads this lie takes the whole pie.Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)MyAnimeList || Reviews

I find it rather silly to be opposed to using qualifying phrases as a 'matter of principle...' I think they definitely have some distinct advantages in an online debate and can stop people from taking things personally (whether or not they're right to do so is irrelevant, in the end) and instead allow the discussion at hand to come to the fore.

Advantages?

Having to walk on glass for people is not my idea of a civil discussion. Being able to freely express oneself without fear of people taking things personally over petty reasons is infinitely better than having to tip-toe around one another. Not to mention that such "qualifying phrases" could come off feeling extremely insincere if misused.

There is of course basic etiquette when talking to people, but there is absolutely no need to exaggerate.

This is, for one reason or another, turning into an argument between two factions, which also represent two prevalent ways of viewing the forum:

Spoiler for two sides:

One side seems to prefer to look at the forum primarily as a means of discourse, a pure melting pot of ideas. As such, contextual barriers to freedom of discourse like tact and cultural values are often eschewed in favor of more detailed discussion, and as long as any given argument follows the conventions of logical discourse, it's fair game.

The other side sees the forum as an extension of real world social interactions. With that view in mind, it's self evident that social etiquette is every bit as important or even more important than proper discourse. Things like trust, humility, and respect are given equal or even greater value than logical arguments.

What kind of forum are we trying to create in the first place, I wonder?

__________________

"Theres an up higher than up, but at the very top, down is all there is."

This is, for one reason or another, turning into an argument between two factions, which also represent two prevalent ways of viewing the forum:

Spoiler for two sides:

One side seems to prefer to look at the forum primarily as a means of discourse, a pure melting pot of ideas. As such, contextual barriers to freedom of discourse like tact and cultural values are often eschewed in favor of more detailed discussion, and as long as any given argument follows the conventions of logical discourse, it's fair game.

The other side sees the forum as an extension of real world social interactions. With that view in mind, it's self evident that social etiquette is every bit as important or even more important than proper discourse. Things like trust, humility, and respect are given equal or even greater value than logical arguments.

What kind of forum are we trying to create in the first place, I wonder?

Let's just say that, in my case, I'm with the latter. How I act here I act in real, and vice versa. I have very little respect for people who use places like these to act out their repressed a-hole tendencies they can't do in real life due to threat of repercussions.

In the end, someone that presents a valid argument yet is a dick will still challenge me more intellectually that someone that's tactful yet presents a worthless argument logically.

Note that I'm not saying that the former is a better person nor worthy of respect, and crossing the line isn't acceptable to community standards. Au contraire, I recognize it as a terrible person making a good argument.

Also, note that just because you have a good argument doesn't mean you get to be a dick to me. You've just proven yourself worthy. Worthy to be crushed by yours truly.

__________________

The greatest lie is to convince people that the world is a dangerous place and a zero sum game where you are never safe. Distrust others and fight them for scraps, while the real enemy that spreads this lie takes the whole pie.Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)MyAnimeList || Reviews

Unfortunately, being a dick makes you a target for moderator intervention.
We all knew that many people have been eaten by Solace's carnivorous bunnies throughout the history of the forums because of their d-baggery that breaches proper behavior in the forums.

Unfortunately, being a dick makes you a target for moderator intervention.
We all knew that many people have been eaten by Solace's carnivorous bunnies throughout the history of the forums because of their d-baggery that breaches proper behavior in the forums.

Well to me, it's like quality visuals in anime. Except translate visuals to tact and the plot to the argument itself. I'd rather take a good story that's unpolished, over a polished turd.

HOWEVER

Crappy visuals are crappy visuals!

You cannot go "Well I have a good plot, so I can not put any effort in the presentation"

Likewise, when you have no tact in an argument, you cannot make that kind of excuse for yourself. A flaw is a flaw.

Furthermore, it is just common sense that participation in a community means that you accept certain standards of the community. Because nobody is forcing you to stay, you should either adapt or leave. Some forums don't allow you to cuss, so I should adhere to it. Even if I disagree with it with all my heart.

Even if you think the rules are stupid, blatantly ignoring them is immature. If you do that, then don't try to think of yourself as a rebel martyr fighting for justice or freedom. You'd be no more virtuous than a homeless guy crashing a party and pissing on the walls.

__________________

The greatest lie is to convince people that the world is a dangerous place and a zero sum game where you are never safe. Distrust others and fight them for scraps, while the real enemy that spreads this lie takes the whole pie.Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)MyAnimeList || Reviews